 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 07-11-2011 17:09 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quote: | 03 November 2011
Italian physicist and inventor Andrea Rossi has conducted a public demonstration of his "cold fusion" machine, the E-Cat, at the University of Bologna, showing that a small amount of input energy drives an unexplained reaction between atoms of hydrogen and nickel that leads to a large outpouring of energy, more than 10 times what was put in. http://www.livescience.com/16864-italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-test.html |
The old, old story of academics pouring cold water on excess heat-energy from cold fusion continues. The excuse, as usual, "is no theory", when we have shown on these pages that theory most often comes from technology and not from the chiseled-in-stone archives of crippling scientific intransigence.
A brief glance at the history of modern innovation shows evidence of the academic naysayers at their negative work opposed to almost every recent historic advance. All that is required is a snap of the fingers to release the hypnotic from the grip of the illusion of academic scientific authority.
| Quote: | Tilting at windmills
The phrase is sometimes used to describe ... courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.
And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21365 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 07-11-2011 20:27 Post subject: |
|
|
|
If he does, then yet again, he will have done something impossible by academic standards. A self-running device is perpetual motion?
Are the walls coming down? It's certainly an improvement on Tilting at Windmills.
Or, are we going to hear that all those who have gained positive results are pulling some kind of stunt?.......for whom.....for what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21365 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 07-11-2011 21:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
How come my comment is attributed to Don Quixote? There ain't no such poster anyhow! I think you're confusing the real world with the world of fiction.
| Quote: | | If he does, then yet again, he will have done something impossible by academic standards. A self-running device is perpetual motion? |
Wasn't that the whole point of the E-cat, that it provides an over-unity power output?
If it has to remain connected to the mains, it's just another way of transforming energy from one form to another, and losing some of it to entropy along the way. We have plenty of other machines that do that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 08-11-2011 18:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | The history of perpetual motion machines dates back to the Middle Ages. For millennia, it was not clear whether perpetual motion devices were possible or not, but the development of modern theories of thermodynamics has indicated that they are impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines
Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion |
 The whole point is that the low energy input converts whatever into higher energy output. This has always been the grail of those who would give the world cheap clean energy.
A conversion process.
A noble quest I would say.
If we return to our dam and boring the hole in it is the low energy. The high energy is the useable flow of water.
The trouble is that it seems to destroy a meaningless scientific axiom.
The water produces more energy than is consumed in boring the hole and this meets the criteria for perpetual motion above.
It matters not what is behind the dam as long as it provides useable energy.
That 'you can't get something for nothing' is the ultimate in stating the obvious and a diversion from the job at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21365 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 08-11-2011 18:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ghostisfort wrote: | The water produces more energy than is consumed in boring the hole and this meets the criteria for perpetual motion above.
It matters not what is behind the dam as long as it provides useable energy. |
But it does matter what is behind the dam, and how it got there.
A water-wheel might seem like perpetual motion, but ultimately it relies on the energy of the sun, which is what put the water behind the dam in the first place.
The science of that is well-understood. In the case of the E-cat it's not, as far as most scientists are aware. We're asked to believe that it pulls energy from 'elsewhere', as if by magic. And if it really can do that, it should be possible to divert some of this energy to its input, thus freeing it from reliance on outside power sources and creating, in effect, a perpetual energy machine! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 08-11-2011 23:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | | Ghostisfort wrote: | The water produces more energy than is consumed in boring the hole and this meets the criteria for perpetual motion above.
It matters not what is behind the dam as long as it provides useable energy. |
But it does matter what is behind the dam, and how it got there.
A water-wheel might seem like perpetual motion, but ultimately it relies on the energy of the sun, which is what put the water behind the dam in the first place.
The science of that is well-understood. In the case of the E-cat it's not, as far as most scientists are aware. We're asked to believe that it pulls energy from 'elsewhere', as if by magic. And if it really can do that, it should be possible to divert some of this energy to its input, thus freeing it from reliance on outside power sources and creating, in effect, a perpetual energy machine! |
The science of the wheel was not understood at one time and had today's academics been around we would still be using skids.
The 'elsewhere' is the unknown, somewhere academics don't want to go, the place where discoveries are made. Do you can call the unknown magic because you don't find consensus science there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21365 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 08-11-2011 23:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ghostisfort wrote: | | The science of the wheel was not understood at one time and had today's academics been around we would still be using skids. |
Erm, wheels have been around for donkey's years (if not longer), and they work pretty well. What kind of (imaginery) science would have wanted to ban them?
| Quote: | | The 'elsewhere' is the unknown, somewhere academics don't want to go, the place where discoveries are made. |
Total nonsense (as usual). The whole business of science is probing the unknown, and that's why discoveries are made there.
Never mind 'consensus science', I just don't even find common sense in your posts. Since you're clearly just reciting your boring old mantras, I'm going to refrain from responding on this thread until such time as you say something sensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 09-11-2011 00:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
The ban as you call it would be on the grounds of 'no theory'.
I and others would like to see an example of recent science "probing the unknown" before you leave?
The laziness of science seems to be increasing to epidemic proportions:
| Quote: | The Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, is lazy and rests on its historical laurels, a leading medical journal says.
A Lancet editorial said the oldest scientific academy in the world had done little in the fields of medical science and public health lately.
And the journal accused the Royal Society of being "self serving" and a "superficial cheerleader". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4562471.stm
Scientists exposed as lazy readers
In the USA, a statistical study has been made on how many scientists really read the original studies they cite. The study showed that scientists often include in their references works that they rarely have bothered to actually read, reports New Scientist.
Researchers Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury of UCLA studied how information spreads around different kinds of networks. They noticed that similar misprints in references in a number of different studies were fairly common and came to the conclusion that many scientists simply copy a reference from someone else's paper without bothering to read the original source. http://www.helsinki.fi/news/archive/1-2003/9-13-59-52
|
This made me laugh:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 09-11-2011 11:59 Post subject: |
|
|
|
The more sources you quote the more likely you are to be published. It's all right though, virtually no-one will read them.
Applies in other disciplines as well, though, includling my own.
I think GhostisFort is saying that sometimes we get things that work and of general use way before we find out why (Electricity and magnetism spring to mind, at least at the atomic level) . Therefore that we don't know how something works should not in itself be a fatal criticism, but, nevertheless, it has come to be so because of the way our modern world works.
(You might not have got investment to develop your wheel, or insurance for testing it, or permission to use it on the sledgeways, if you were in fact just a carpenter and had no idea about centripetal force etc.)
It is a fair point, I think. Look at what happened to the Segway in the UK (Basically 'not allowed' on public streets or pavements/sidewalks because it didn't fit preconcieved notions of what transport should be). I know there is no unknown science in the Segway, but I imagine it would have had an even harder time if there was.
Furthermore, you could argue that the historical method of things coming into use and then the science being worked out after has actually driven science to make discoveries that otherwise would not have occured. (We were still working out detail - and making minor new discoveries - about the gas flow in steam engines 300 years after they were invented and 40 years after they went out of general use! See works by David Wardale for some examples.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eburacum Papo-Furado
Great Old One Joined: 26 Aug 2005 Total posts: 1587 Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eburacum Papo-Furado
Great Old One Joined: 26 Aug 2005 Total posts: 1587 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 09-11-2011 15:54 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ghostisfort wrote: | | The old, old story of academics pouring cold water on excess heat-energy from cold fusion continues. |
Well, this story can develop in two ways. Either Rossi's generator is vindicated and it starts producing excess energy for the world to use in perpetuity (there are gigatonnes of nickel on and in this planet within relatively easy access, and plenty of hydrogen);
or...
the device is revealed as yet another fraud. Remember Rossi has already been to prison for reasonably similar energy-related activities.
Which do you think is the most likely outcome?
Note that whatever happens, this remains a gem of a Fortean story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-11-2011 11:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't think it was meant for off roading. Nor were the first cars. The point I was trying to make was that it seemed to be a promising addition to our means of transport, relatively environmentally friendly, and it wasn't allowed to get off the ground. (So to speak, didn't mean a pun there  )
It is possible to pooh-pooh (Oh gosh, now were going into Blackadder) something so much that it never develops as it should even though it might have developed into something useful, after all the first cars, planes and steam locomotives were pretty laughable - but that was a different age where it was possible to determined individuals to persist down an apparently unpromising path with minimal resources until the idea eventually matured enough for others to see the potential. I think that for all sorts of reasons, some sensible and some not, that it is much more difficult for a lone inventor to achieve such a breakthrough in this century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-11-2011 14:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree with the above and would go further in saying that it's become impossible to manufacture a transport or energy device for general use. It has to be something like a vacuum cleaner or a bottle opener, benign and no threat to science or big business.
If a fraction of the hot fusion money were spent on cold fusion or cavitation energy research, we would have our cheap, clean energy. The multinationals are not stupid and they know about the hot fusion fiasco. Of how the physicists will hang onto it at any cost, spending to the point of bankruptcy. The oil companies know the oil is in safe theoretical hands.
This is a scandal supported by academia, the media and governments, never mentioned because we have all been educated to respect science and to think of physics as beyond our understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghostisfort Great Old One Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Total posts: 770 Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
)